The 4th Box Sparks Imagination

Start a Conversation

Remixers and meme-makers, we have a tool for you. We are pleased to be partnered with Center for Story-based Strategy in the release of an illustration kit: the4thbox.com

Imagery is a huge factor in framing the terms of a conversation. This kit is meant to inspire imagery that provokes new interactions between people. We believe these interactions will help open up imagination towards the liberated, equitable society we want.

Artwork by Angus Maguire: http://beclouded.net/

What do you want to foreshadow?

What conversation is relevant to changing hearts and minds in your community, online or in person?

How do you imagine #the4thbox?

Together we can use this tool to start 1,000 conversations about the world we want, which is a step to making it real. Are you up for the challenge? Post your image with #the4thbox.

You might also like...

The Comms team has used #the4thbox twice now with gathered groups of people and it’s had pretty astounding results. We find it is a helpful way to get people out of an intellectual space about equity,...

IISC is proud to announce the release of the Code Switch Listening Party Kit, produced by NPR’s Generation Listen. So many great podcasts, so little time to talk about them with friends. Have a listening party!...

This weekend I attended CommonBound 2016, the bi-annual conference of the New Economy Coalition (NEC), “…a [160-member] network of organizations imagining and building a future where people, communities, and ecosystems thrive. Together, we are creating deep...

Here is Part 3 of The Ikeda Center Podcast’s interview series with Ceasar McDowell. Listen here In this final segment of our three part interview, Dr. Ceasar McDowell introduces some early experiences that have inspired his...

9 Comments

Thanks team! Looking forward to seeing what remixes are out there. Maybe my fourth box would have these three people sitting in seats in the stadium, with a fence just high enough to keep a ground ball from rolling into the next county!

I did this activity with graduate students in an early childhood education class at the University of Dayton. They positioned the people to knock over the fence, put them in the best seats at the game and used words like collaboration and inclusive. Great fun and an even greater conversation.

There are two matter in the original graph which puzzles me a bit. One is that the concepts seem to mess in the graphs. In the “equality” graph, we do not see “equality” but “inequality”, actually. We see the NUMERICAL equality (“give all the same load”) but not the PROPORTIONAL equality (“give all what they can carry”) discussed already by Aristotle. So, why we call the graph “equality” at all? The latter graph “equity” is same as “proportional equality” in Aristotelian thinking. So, no “equity” but “equality”?.

I may be incorrect but the way I have learnt the matter is that equity is the basic PRINCIPLE related to the fairness and just. E.g. the females should have a basic possibility as being treated equally in comparison with males. So, we claim fairness, that is, equity. Then, equality is the DEGREE of this fairness. Whether or not the females ARE equal with males is the matter of equality AFTER we confess that they have the basic right to be treated equally (that is, we confess the equity as a principle). Then the question is WHY would we expect the same value and treatment for both males and females: because both belong to same category: humans. Then, we claim equity, and equality or parity is the concept we used for the degree of this equity. Am I far from truth? From this point of view, the terminology in the graphs seem to be a bit odd. What is said to be equality is actually inequality and what is said to be equity is actually equality.

All in all, I have problems to get in the basic thinking behind the graphs. What is said to be “equality” is actually “inequality” because only one of many types of equality is taken as “equality”. To me, a better name of the “Equality” graph could be “equal correction leading to inequality” and the latter graph could be named as “proportional correction leading to equality”. In my mind, “equity” is something else; why on earth they all should be interested in the same game… But IF they all ARE interested in the same game (= there should be equity beween the guys), we would expect equality in their seeing possibilities… I’m happy to discuss with someone of this, if the reader thinks I’m incorrect in my points.

What i don’t realize is actually how you’re no longer actually a lot more well-liked than you may be right now.
You’re so intelligent. You know thus significantly in relation to this matter, produced me
in my view believe it from so many various angles.
Its like men and women don’t seem to be fascinated unless it’s
one thing to do with Lady gaga! Your personal stuffs excellent.
At all times care for it up!